As I said before, I'm very irritated about the new restrictions on pseudophedrine. And as the cold and flu season gears up, other people are getting ticked off, too. From Paul Boutin's blog, via Boing Boing:
Instructions for Americans
To buy original formula Sudafed, Wal-fed, or other pseudophedrine sinus medicine that actually works (not the new Sudafed PE), go to your supermarket or drugstore and look in the cold remedies sections where it used to be. They now have little fake boxes or cards you take to the pharmacist to say "I want one of these." The pharmacist checks your ID and you sign for it.
Why can't you buy Sudafed over the counter anymore?
The renewed USA PATRIOT Act signed into law in March includes a "Meth Act" aimed at reducing production of methamphetamines, which can be manufactured from pseudophedrine, aka Sudafed. That's why Sudafed changed their over-the-counter formula to Sudafed PE. You can still buy Sudafed original if you go to the pharmacist at Safeway or Walgreens. But you can only buy one box a day and three a month, and you need to present a photo ID and sign a log for the pharmacist. The idea is to keep meth dealers from buying Sudafed in quantity to cook it into methamphetamine. The bill was attached to the Patriot Act after co-authors Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Jim Talent (R-MO) were unable to get it passed by other means.
In case it's useful:
Contact Sentator Feinstein
By e-mail
Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954
[Talent was defeated in the last election.]
What's most upsetting, of course, is how our rights can be eroded (our right to free breath!) without much attention or fanfare.
UPDATE: Check out the comments here and on Boing Boing. It's a contentious topic. More info on Slate, MSNBC, and Frontline.
8 comments:
Normally, I'd be sympathetic to this kind of thing. Mostly, though, I think that of all the things in the Patriot Act to complain about, this might be the most benign. Addiction to meth only goes down when the makers can't get to the supplies easily or they only have access to stuff that makes low-quality meth. The reason those congress people couldn't get a separate bill through is opposition from big drug companies.
Honestly, what people are irritated about is inconvenience solely. It seems just a tad selfish, or at least like it hasn't been thought through. At the very least, there's another side to the story.
I'm perfectly happy to "endure" the inconvenience if it helps fight meth addiction. Sure, I'd be happier if it weren't attached to a bill that has nothing to do with this subject, but I don't see it as a so black-and-white as is being made out.
Jeff VanderMeer
Ha! Contact Talent to do something about it? Right.... And McCaskill won't do anything. Missouri has a huge meth problem and both these congresscritters think this solves the problem. Yeah, right...
I think your outrage is misplaced on this issue - I'm very irritated about the meth epidemic, and the resultant crime, toxic waste, child abuse and general mayhem that results.
Looking at this map, it seems that your state hasn't experienced it much yet.
In Oregon, a bill was passed that makes a prescription required to get pseudoephedrine. This is a good thing. The national bill is a good thing, even though attached to other legislation.
After you watch the Frontline special above, you may instead want to contact those two senators and *thank* them for trying to prevent meth from getting as bad where you live as it is where I live.
I'm proud that Oklahoma was the first state to restrict volume purchases of these drugs - that led to a drastic reduction in our horrible meth epidemic. That it became a rider on the Patriot Act is a false issue. Please watch the Frontline special mentioned earlier and become informed about the issue, rather than labeling people idiots for a minor inconvenience that has been a powerfully positive tool in the effort to curb methamphetamine production and all of its horrible societal woes. Once the horrors of the countless meth labs and destroyed families strikes your state, you'll change your tune if you care about those unfortunate enough to take meth.
It's true, meth isn't a big problem in my area, so I can only write from my experience. From my perspective, this means I can't get Pediacare when my kids are sick, which means more congestion, more ear infections, more antibiotics. Is this really the best way to deal with the problem? If huffers get out of control, do we ban household cleaners?
Yes, this is the best way to deal with the problem. Limit both the small number of factories that produce pseudoephedrine, and limit retail sales.
It's working.
You can buy Pediacare in the off-season, too. It has a reasonable shelf-life.
One more note - Frontline responded to Slate's criticism.
Well, two - a question to ponder - if 85% of property crimes in your area were due to huffers being out of control, what would you do about it?
Okay, I'm officially more knowledgeable about the issues than the average American. And I still think it's bullshit. Frontline says that the international meth dealers have stepped in and filled the gap left by the back-yard meth makers; the Oregon series says that strategies employed in the 90s, and abandoned, reduced meth production and addiction; and according to both there are specific things the government should do that don't involved keeping a working decongestant out of the hands of consumers. Furthermore, Oregon's biggest issue used to be heroin; they seem to have a drug problem, not just a meth problem.
I don't think saying 85% of property destruction is caused by meth is quite right. More accurately, 85% of property damage is caused by people who are also meth users. This makes sense. Criminals are often also drug users, and the drug of choice in Oregon is meth.
Post a Comment